Welcome

Welcome to the POZ/AIDSmeds Community Forums, a round-the-clock discussion area for people with HIV/AIDS, their friends/family/caregivers, and
others concerned about HIV/AIDS. Click on the links below to browse our various forums; scroll down for a glance at the most recent posts; or join in the
conversation yourself by registering on the left side of this page.

Privacy Warning: Please realize that these forums are open to all, and are fully searchable via Google and other search engines. If you are HIV positive
and disclose this in our forums, then it is almost the same thing as telling the whole world (or at least the World Wide Web). If this concerns you, then do not use a
username or avatar that are self-identifying in any way. We do not allow the deletion of anything you post in these forums, so think before you post.

The information shared in these forums, by moderators and members, is designed to complement, not replace, the relationship between an individual and his/her own
physician.

All members of these forums are, by default, not considered to be licensed medical providers. If otherwise, users must clearly define themselves as such.

Forums members must behave at all times with respect and honesty. Posting guidelines, including time-out and banning policies, have been established by the moderators
of these forums. Click here for “Am I Infected?” posting guidelines. Click here for posting guidelines pertaining to all other POZ/AIDSmeds community forums.

We ask all forums members to provide references for health/medical/scientific information they provide, when it is not a personal experience being discussed. Please
provide hyperlinks with full URLs or full citations of published works not available via the Internet. Additionally, all forums members must post information which are
true and correct to their knowledge.

Author
Topic: IMF ex-Chief DSK 'Set To Be Released' (Read 6995 times)

Seems like the case against Dominique Strauss-Khan is close to collapse; that he is set to be freed from all bail conditions, curfew, tagging and house arrest and have all his bail money and bond returned!

Prosecutors are said to have agreed that Mr Strauss-Kahn should be freed "on his own recognisance," meaning he must simply promise to appear in court.

But the case is reported to be close to collapse after serious doubts arose about the credibility of his accuser. And that's from the Prosecutors, not the defence. They have found evidence that this woman has lied and lied and lied from the very beginning, and as well as that appeared to have lied about her asylum application, the story for which she now admits to be totally false!

Well, there you go. All those people who sought to sit in judgement on DSK right at the start, even after some pleaded for a bit of patience, must be feeling pretty silly now.Once again, plenty of women lie about rape and sexual assault and do real victims no favours at all.

Really?I thought I was just disseminating information. Oh and by the way, it has now happened. DSK is now free of restrictive bail.

'Petty' is an extreme understatement of those who so gleefully rushed to judgement at the beginning.I'm not one to rub anyone's nose in their contempt for evidence or the principle of 'innocent until proven guilty' (in a country with the highest per capita incarceration of people in prison in virtually the entire world) but sometimes such disrespect for truth, evidence and the laws of natural justice needs to be faced up to. If you don't believe that then I hope you never have a brush with the law and people who think 'guilty until we damn well decide otherwise'.Have a nice day.

They have found evidence that this woman has lied and lied and lied from the very beginning, and as well as that appeared to have lied about her asylum application, the story for which she now admits to be totally false!

Well, there you go. All those people who sought to sit in judgement on DSK right at the start, even after some pleaded for a bit of patience, must be feeling pretty silly now.Once again, plenty of women lie about rape and sexual assault and do real victims no favours at all.

And you say other people sit in judgement? Is that statement I have underlined a judgemental statement by you? Also, who is not to say that DSK's money did not buy his way out of this one? We have also seen that happen here in the US (remember O.J.?) --- his defense team was being paid to dig up any dirt, any inconsistency, or other info that could call in to question the primary witness/victim's credibility. Remember, just because a person's credibility is called into account - does not automatically mean that an incident didn't occur. I actually don't feel silly - I feel that this person's (DSK) power and $$$$$ possibly bought his way out of this -- but, that is okay, cause in the end, predators and rapists always get caught.... if not on this case, then on the next one.

And you say other people sit in judgement? Is that statement I have underlined a judgemental statement by you?

Even on the basis of your posts here, that one is particularly egregious in its grammatical nonsense.That was a statement of verifiable fact.It has been reported on many many times both over there, and here in the UK, that the number of women making malicious false claims of sexual assault has gradually risen over the last 20 years.So it is a fact and not a judgement. It happens frequently and that can't be denied.

The reasoning behind it is complex. For some women it is about terrible guilt about agreeing to sex with someone either because of perceived 'damage' to their reputation, or because they are in a relationship and don't want to admit they cheated on someone, or because they can't face up to a problem with alcohol and a failure to properly judge their own actions.In some cases it is far more maliciously directed at an individual, and that may well turn out to be the case here with DSK but we don't know.

As for your last sentence (I couldn't believe what nonsense flying in the face of fact it was! lol) that 'predators and racists always get caught' - what world do you live in?Actually, most of the time they DON'T!!Most rapists in the US and the UK get away with it!The numbers being prosecuted and convicted have been falling consistently.And *PART* of the reason for that is Juries seeing how many cases involve malicious false claims, so Juries have been erring on the side of NOT convicting unless they believe the guilt without one tiny fraction of doubt!

And *PART* of the reason for that is Juries seeing how many cases involve malicious false claims, so Juries have been erring on the side of NOT convicting unless they believe the guilt without one tiny fraction of doubt!

That's a very good thing considering that is exactly how the legal system in the US is supposed to work. "Beyond a shadow of a doubt" means there can be no room for doubt in a conviction.

As for Dominique Strauss Kahn if it's true that his accuser lied about it all then I'm glad he's going free, but don't forget that this was not the first accusation made of him and that probably played a larger part in this whole investigation than you're giving it credit for.

That was a statement of verifiable fact.It has been reported on many many times both over there, and here in the UK, that the number of women making malicious false claims of sexual assault has gradually risen over the last 20 years.So it is a fact and not a judgement. It happens frequently and that can't be denied.

Please provide a citation to a study showing these claims have outpaced population growth...

Pretty easy for a multimillionaire super smart and powerful man to smear everything about a woman with her life story.

Also, if you rape a liar, it's still rape and still a crime. It just means, more difficult to get a conviction out of a jury.

If I correctly read the snippets today, the case is being questioned because the dirt uncovered on the alleged victim makes a "he said, she said" situation something a court can't effectively deal with.

But, I'll just wait for the CASE to be dismissed and all the reasons why. Its too convenient for the accused that this smear happened even before the trial.

I would lie on an asylum application, if that was the only way forward in my life. Not right, but that's life.

Apples and oranges. Apples - her liesOranges - the alleged crime.

Logged

“From each, according to his ability; to each, according to his need” 1875 K Marx

That's a very good thing considering that is exactly how the legal system in the US is supposed to work. "Beyond a shadow of a doubt" means there can be no room for doubt in a conviction.

As for Dominique Strauss Kahn if it's true that his accuser lied about it all then I'm glad he's going free, but don't forget that this was not the first accusation made of him and that probably played a larger part in this whole investigation than you're giving it credit for.

Two things amiss there:

1. The bar of conviction is 'beyond a reasonable doubt' - it does not bar having any doubts. It is 'not having sufficient doubt so that you are sure'.The history of poor prosecutions and awful character assassinating 'defence' strategies, allied with much publicity of false malicious claims, has pushed a lot of juries to set a higher bar when convicting, so conviction often happens only when the whole jury (or at least 10 of 12) have *no doubts*, however slim.That is actually not the same as 'beyond a reasonable doubt'.

2. DSK's disgraceful treatment by NYPD and State Attorneys; the 'perp walk' unshaven, dishevelled in handcuffs to a media frenzy was just a suck re-enactment of a piece of cheap, second-rate, pulp drama a la 'Law & Order' and just another example to the world of the many 'warts' of the US justice system that imprisons more innocent people than any other democracy, and imprisons more people per head of its population (currently 2.6+ million in your jails) than virtually any other country in the world.That had nothing to do with prior allegations that didn't even come out till AFTER his arrest, and were 'allegations' and not a rap sheet!Anyone can make allegations.

What I have seen from you are personal attacks on any member who disagrees with you.... yet, I have not seen members personally attack you - they may not agree with you, but have not attacked you....

Is this how they do things in your country - is this part of the non-judgemental aspects you refer to; the character assassinations that you reference the U.S. making.

Time and time again, you post inflammatory comments, make personal negative comments about other members, basically flamebait, and very rarely provide citations for the statements you make. After you have done this, you basically crawl back into your hole.

Yes indeed I apologise - I allowed my outrage and frustration with mecch for suggesting something that was the total opposite of the case to get the better of me.In fact, I was even more unjustified in getting a little snippy with him, since I should be content that the complete and utter charade that was the arrest and treatment of DSK has back-fired so badly, and brought the NYPD and State Attorney's office into such disrepute.So I'll leave it at.

In the interest of transparency, citations and information regarding US incarceration rate: The United States has the highest documented incarceration rate in the world. As of year end 2009 the rate was 743 people incarcerated in prisons and jails per 100,000 population.[2][3][4][6] Citations for above:2. ^ a b c World Prison Brief - Highest to Lowest Figures. International Centre for Prison Studies. School of Law, King's College London. Compare many nations. Select from menu: prison population total, prison population rate, percentage of pre-trial detainees / remand prisoners within the prison population, percentage of female prisoners within the prison population, percentage of foreign prisoners within the prison population and occupancy rate.3. ^ a b c d e f Prison Brief for United States of America. International Centre for Prison Studies. School of Law, King's College London. Divide national population (from section titled "Prison population rate") by the prison population in order to get the number for "1 out of every 135 U.S. residents was incarcerated".4. ^ a b c d e Correctional Populations in the United States, 2009. NCJ 231681. By Lauren Glaze. December 21, 2010. United States Bureau of Justice Statistics. See page 2 of the PDF file for the percent of adults under correctional supervision. See appendix table 2 for the incarceration totals, breakdown, and rates.5. ^ a b c Walmsley, Roy (2009). "World Prison Population List. 8th edition" (PDF). International Centre for Prison Studies. School of Law, King's College London. http://www.kcl.ac.uk/depsta/law/research/icps/downloads/wppl-8th_41.pdf. "The information is the latest available in early December 2008. ... Most figures relate to dates between the beginning of 2006 and the end of November 2008." According to the summary on page one there were 2.29 million U.S. inmates and 9.8 million inmates worldwide. The U.S. held 23.4% of the world's inmates. The U.S. total in this report is for Dec. 31, 2007 (see page 3) and does not include inmates in juvenile detention facilities. For the latest info worldwide see World Prison Brief.6. ^ "New Incarceration Figures: Thirty-Three Consecutive Years of Growth" (PDF). Sentencing Project. December 2006. http://www.sentencingproject.org/doc/publications/inc_newfigures.pdf. Retrieved 2007-06-10.

It is important to point out that there are multiple reasons for this – each with citations that can be provided to back it up – the two biggest reasons: Americans are locked up for crimes — from writing bad checks to using drugs — that would rarely produce prison sentences in other countries. And in particular they are kept incarcerated far longer than prisoners in other nations.

Criminologists and legal experts here and abroad point to a tangle of factors to explain America's extraordinary incarceration rate: higher levels of violent crime, harsher sentencing laws, a legacy of racial turmoil, a special fervor in combating illegal drugs, the American temperament, and the lack of a social safety net. Even democracy plays a role, as judges — many of whom are elected, another American anomaly — yield to populist demands for tough justice. (Source for above: http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/23/world/americas/23iht-23prison.12253738.html)

While there are times that someone is falsely accused and incarcerated, for the most part, the reason the US has a high rate of incarceration are those noted above.

And a wealth of information around why it is such a high rate of incarceration. Not just 'higher' but way off the scale.A simple comparison shows quite how far off the scale it really is:The UK, shamefully, has the highest per capita prison population in the whole of Europe bar none.But the USA still imprisons at least FIVE TIMES more people per head of the population than the UK.

One of the factors maintaining very high prison populations in the USA is that a massive part of it is a profit-making business. And recent cases around convicted corrupt Judges who were being paid by penal institutions to jail young offenders who would otherwise have not been given a custodial sentence.Can you believe that? Judges sticking teenagers in jail in return for a financial 'bung'.

All the prosecution is saying is that she lies. They aren't saying the crime didin't happen. And being released from bond is not the same as dismissing the prosecution.I'll wait for the official announcements before I believe anything about either party.Don't forget, there was that weird scandal at the beginning about how she was in apartments for HIV+ people. That has not resurfaced. Bad reporting? Someone's early smear tactics. A result of her lies? A result of the social services just trying to get a poor working woman housing?

This is a media rat fuck because the media wins no matter what happens to the alleged victim or the the accused.

I don't think the DA or the police have egg on their faces just yet.

All we know for the moment is that DSK is known, established fact, for unprofessional sexual harrassment in the execution of his power. Dude hit on everyone, and forced an employee to have an affair with him. He was in NY on his employer's dime by the way, so he was working. Hitting on the hotel employees.

And we don't even know yet what all these "lies" are this woman has told. We don't know yet.

Logged

“From each, according to his ability; to each, according to his need” 1875 K Marx

My understanding is that his defence all along was that it was 'consensual'.

And if charged in a country where 'money' talks (you don't have a Legal Aid system such as we do where even the most famous and experienced advocates appear for penniless defendants) who would imagine that DSK would not use any money at his disposal to get the best representation?

Is DSK a 'nice' man?Who knows?Plenty of 'nice' people have been guilty of horrendous crimes, and plenty of pretty nasty people have been 'innocent' of alleged crimes.Do the rich and powerful sometimes get away with things they shouldn't? Well, I'll leave citizens of a country where that is pretty rife to pass judgement on that.

As for Tristane Bannon well as much as I would have sympathy for her at the time - if the allegations are true - I have less sympathy that she chose not to deal with it at the time, for whatever reason, and then comes along nine years later. She was not some lowly-paid subordinate who would have risked her total livelihood. She is the daughter of members of the 'elite' of French society. Actually, I have no sympathy for her now. She should have pressed charges at the time. Now, almost a decade down the line, she should be dismissed as an irrelevance.

I'll wait for the official announcements before I believe anything about either party.We don't know yet.

I've cut out the in between bit because the above contradicts it.In fact, that is what most of us (and without doubt the vast majority in Europe) believed at the beginning.There is no good reason to pass judgement ahead of a trial and references to unsubstantiated and unproven allegations about DSK contradict that.Is DSK a pea out of the same pod as John F Kennedy (and 1000s of other members of the establishment elite)? Who knows, and if he is well it makes him pretty much the same.I don't remember ever seeing JFK, or Edward Kennedy or Clinton or a host of others (who were actually responsible for far worse crimes against women than DSK has even had alleged against him) hauled before a court in handcuffs.Maybe they should have been.

Piroska Nagy explains why she had a brief affair with Dominique Strauss-Kahn at the World Economic Forum in 2008: "I was damned if I did and damned if I didn’t,” she wrote in a letter to the IMF... [DSK is] a man with a problem that may make him ill-equipped to lead an institution where women work under his command.”

Where there is smoke there is fire. He abused his power. Not saying that proves he is a rapist.

Really?

What a contradiction.

On that basis you should campaign for the posthumous conviction of JFK and Edward Kennedy for manslaughter. After all, they were most definitely guilty of that in at least two cases.Clinton?He was almost hounded out of office for his penchant for sex with interns, but by people who had no interest in the well-being of the vulnerable women he prayed upon but because they didn't like his politics.

Hypocrisy is a hallmark of politics in many places, and supremely so in the USA.

On that basis you should campaign for the posthumous conviction of JFK and Edward Kennedy for manslaughter. After all, they were most definitely guilty of that in at least two cases.Clinton?He was almost hounded out of office for his penchant for sex with interns, but by people who had no interest in the well-being of the vulnerable women he prayed upon but because they didn't like his politics.

Hypocrisy is a hallmark of politics in many places, and supremely so in the USA.

Matt - once again, while you may not be personally attacking anyone - however, you are attacking the country that various members reside in --- while no one is attacking the country that you reside in. Could you please be considerate of that?

Matt - once again, while you may not be personally attacking anyone - however, you are attacking the country that various members reside in --- while no one is attacking the country that you reside in. Could you please be considerate of that?

My comments are about a system that was at fault in handling this case.This is an 'off-topic' forum and frankly, freedom of speech is not about protecting anyone's 'pride'.I have already referred to my own country's shameful record in prison incarceration so I rather think I am being a tad more objective and even-handed than you give credit for.Someone famous once said that 'patriotism' is the last refuge of the scoundrel. I tend to agree with that.I love the tree-lined winding roads of the English Kent countryside, the fantastic real ale produced here, the fair-play mindset and courteous nature of ordinary English people but I don't equate that with being 'proud' of England or Britain or the UK as political/nation entities. I am just as critical of 'my' country for its crimes in Iraq and Afghanistan as I am the USA. In that sense I have a right to attack the 'UK' for those things, and I have the same right to attack the policies of any country I so wish.

No one is arguing your right to express your opinions or feelings -if you read my post, i clearly asked, in regards to making consistently disparaging remarks about the US (while only making one disparaging remark about your country) if you could be so considerate as to not do that when no one is attacking the country in which you live....

Obviously, your response, where you state your right to express yourself shows that "consideration" for others takes a backseat with you. Duly noted.

On that basis you should campaign for the posthumous conviction of JFK and Edward Kennedy for manslaughter. After all, they were most definitely guilty of that in at least two cases.Clinton?He was almost hounded out of office for his penchant for sex with interns, but by people who had no interest in the well-being of the vulnerable women he prayed upon but because they didn't like his politics.

Hypocrisy is a hallmark of politics in many places, and supremely so in the USA.

I don't see any contradiction.

JFK was in power 50 years ago. And nobody is talking about him.

Nobody was happy with the fact that Clinton had sex with a young intern, in the Whitehouse, and for whatever agenda people went after him and got the impeachment process, it was an abuse of power and he paid dearly.

I live in Europe too and watch French TV all the time and there is no public consensus that DSK is a victim of whatever plot, or shakedown by this woman, or whatever.

You invent stuff for the sake of argument.

My own reading so far is this. Women do not run out of consensual one off sex encounters immediately talking about rape. There are many rumors of his aggressive pursuit of women and many reports of his aggressive bedroom behavior when he gets the sex.

Yes his defense from the start had to be it was consensual. Maybe it even was, then got much too rough. Who knows. His legal defense is certainly served by a total tear down of this woman.

She gains nothing. She came straight forward and there has been no attempt to shake him down behind the scenes, otherwise he would have shown the proof.

She didn't know who he was and her first statement to the police was that he was screaming at her during the alleged act, don't you know who I am.

There was a major difference between Clinton and Monica Lewinski and DSK and the maid --- the difference? Clinton was never accused of raping Ms. Lewinski (she admitted from the beginning that their sexual activities were consentual), so to even bring up that he should have faced criminal charges and compare it to the violent act of rape that DSK is alleged to have committed against the hotel maid is completely unacceptable and just wrong.

I simply don't agree with you. The way in which DSK was dealt with (not being arrested per se, that was entirely reasonable) was frankly nauseating and I believe very firmly that such treatment happened for political reasons.

Miss Philicia: I've been travelling to and from the USA for more than two decades and I have long standing friendships with Americans, with many of whom I share the same views. None of them would ever say 'Don't attack my country!', like its some kind of possession. And neither would most of my friends here in the UK respond like that to criticisms of the UK either. I respect the fact that you choose to adopt that attitude - I just don't agree with it and I don't believe it has much to do with freedom of expression or democratic rights. I hold those values as of much greater value than 'patriotism'.

The Perp walk is a different issue and I don't like it either. It's has no value to your argument that the DA has egg on its face because many high profile people get the perp walk, it's a disgusting tradition. DSK was not exceptionally submitted to it.Nor what on earth would the DA gain politically from arresting such a high profile frenchman? You are saying enemies in the French right got to the DA and corrupted it for French political purposes? Talk about conspiracy theories!

Logged

“From each, according to his ability; to each, according to his need” 1875 K Marx

Miss Philicia: I've been travelling to and from the USA for more than two decades and I have long standing friendships with Americans, with many of whom I share the same views. None of them would ever say 'Don't attack my country!', like its some kind of possession. And neither would most of my friends here in the UK respond like that to criticisms of the UK either. I respect the fact that you choose to adopt that attitude - I just don't agree with it and I don't believe it has much to do with freedom of expression or democratic rights. I hold those values as of much greater value than 'patriotism'.

orly... I've been traveling to Europe for 31 years. I've also lived there (Winchester, UK actually... art school for a year) as well as numerous boyfriends, partners and other assorted relations. Trust, none every accuse me of being the stereotypical flag-waving Yankee, especially the French ones.

You've made comments in other threads that seem to veer a bit too close to some "lite" version of a National Front member (emphasis on "lite"... I'd never resort to hyperbole).

ps: I also clearly stated an aversion to the "perp walk" tradition in the previous thread on this subject.

There was a major difference between Clinton and Monica Lewinski and DSK and the maid --- the difference? Clinton was never accused of raping Ms. Lewinski (she admitted from the beginning that their sexual activities were consentual), so to even bring up that he should have faced criminal charges and compare it to the violent act of rape that DSK is alleged to have committed against the hotel maid is completely unacceptable and just wrong.

There is as much evidence that JFK's behaviour towards a vulnerable Marilyn Monroe led to her suicide. A reasonable case for manslaughter could be made.And in any case, JFK was a womaniser in the most predatory way that makes DSK look like a frat kid.Edward Kennedy should have faced manslaughter charges at the very least for the death of Mary Jo Kopechne.Clinton prayed on many women - Lewinsky was but one example of a litany of naive, vulnerable women that he used. Whether he committed any statute crimes may be debatable. That he used his position of power to get sexual gratification from subordinate women (and long before he was President!!!) is not in dispute.What about Senators and Congressmen who were known to prey on male student interns?Don't you remember that?Boys coerced into being fucked by powerful politicians sounds just like a form of rape to me.I don't see any of them ever having ended up in a big cell with a few violent offenders.

There was a major difference between Clinton and Monica Lewinski and DSK and the maid --- the difference? Clinton was never accused of raping Ms. Lewinski (she admitted from the beginning that their sexual activities were consentual), so to even bring up that he should have faced criminal charges and compare it to the violent act of rape that DSK is alleged to have committed against the hotel maid is completely unacceptable and just wrong.

Exactly. Stick to the topic of debate.

By the way, we are all using "argumentum ad hominem" (we bring character of the subjects into the argument) but Matt39 you use a lot shaky rhetorical techniques, one of the most annoying for many of us here being tapinosis.

Logged

“From each, according to his ability; to each, according to his need” 1875 K Marx

You've made comments in other threads that seem to veer a bit too close to some "lite" version of a National Front member

You probably mean British National Party - unless you are confusing the UK with France. The 'National Front' hasn't existed here for a couple of decades.But no, I'd not last more than minutes in the company of BNP folk as my politics are the very worst kind in their eyes.Because of that, your idea of a what their views are is amusing to me since I suspect you have very little real idea what the views of those people are, because if you did you wouldn't confuse mine with theirs.

What have the Kennedys got to do with any of this. Completely tangential. And most Americans remembered Ted's revolting actions and he never got to be President. They were if anything moral lessons for America.

And anyway, three wrongs don't make a right. What's your point?

Logged

“From each, according to his ability; to each, according to his need” 1875 K Marx

Clinton prayed on many women - Lewinsky was but one example of a litany of naive, vulnerable women that he used. Whether he committed any statute crimes may be debatable. That he used his position of power to get sexual gratification from subordinate women (and long before he was President!!!) is not in dispute.What about Senators and Congressmen who were known to prey on male student interns?Don't you remember that?Boys coerced into being fucked by powerful politicians sounds just like a form of rape to me.I don't see any of them ever having ended up in a big cell with a few violent offenders.

Sounds like rape is not the same as rape.... and if DSK is guilty of rape then he is a violent offender and deserves to be in a cell with violent offenders. Taking advantage of someone is not the same as rape. Do you even know your legal definitions of rape? Do you? I'm sure those women (and men) who have been violently raped would beg to disagree strongly with your characterization of someone being taken advantage of or someone being a womanizer as being essentially the same as someone being raped.

I'm done even engaging in this thread you started --- I am only glad that the majority of people from your country aren't as dense as you are. Are you somehow related to DSK - I mean they say the apple doesn't fall far from the tree.

What about Senators and Congressmen who were known to prey on male student interns?Don't you remember that?Boys coerced into being fucked by powerful politicians sounds just like a form of rape to me.I don't see any of them ever having ended up in a big cell with a few violent offenders.

Foley was properly investigated by the FBI and did not survive his scandalous actions. He was wrong and paid for it. Weiner just paid for his inappropriate actions. I don't get your argument at all. You're referencing bad behavior as a defense that DSK NOT be submitted to an investigation of a rape?

Logged

“From each, according to his ability; to each, according to his need” 1875 K Marx

If this wasn't an anti-American thread when it started, it sure is now. Words are like flag burning, you can destroy the symbol but never the intent. Nobody claimed America was perfect, but hundreds of millions of immigrants, including our parents, thought this was a pretty decent place to call home. I see no sense in arguing what happened a few months ago, with other totally unrelated events decades before.